A couple of days ago I had the distinct privilege of being one of a dozen virtual roundtable participants, convened and hosted by Prince Charles, as part of his Sustainable Market Initiative.  The hour-long consortium featured three Americans, several Brits, a couple of Australians, one Dane and an Indian (one of my heroes, Vandana Shiva).

             Moderated by Sustainable Food Trust founder and director, Patrick Holden, the roundtable was tasked with identifying barriers to more wide adoption of sustainability.  It was divided into four themes:  finance, labels, certification, and smallholder access.

             Each participant responded to a specific question as we systematically moved through these themes.  My question was if there was a way to create a universal metric to reduce certification confusion, be more comprehensive, and have no scale prejudice?  Simple question.  We each had 2 minutes to answer.

             Here is my answer:

             A new certification program seems to step on the scene every few days, each concentrating on yet another

aspect of sustainability, costing the farmer more time and money to comply, and always framed in a pass/fail model. You’re either in or out.

             The result of this is confusion, scale prejudice, and lack of comprehensive measures.

             What if, through broad consensus, a metric could be established similar to Olympic gymnastics ratings wherein all participants could be placed on a continuum of expertise?  What if we could have a universal language that would comprehensively address all the values of sustainability as a percentage of excellence?

             That honors every step toward sustainability and also recognizes different strengths; very few people are strong on all points; allowing different players to compensate in their area of passion for weaknesses in other areas lets everyone play to their strengths and affirms all steps toward an agreed-on paradise.

             Current certification programs fail to account for significant aspects of sustainability.  For example, is soil development

more important than the happiness of people working on the farm?  Is soil more important than water resiliency?  Is any of this more important than business integrity?  A metric capturing these various values would put all players on a level field.

             Such a metric would honor people rather than confuse them or fail them outright.

             As a livestock producer, I’ve brainstormed 10 categories of interest.  Imagine if each received a 0-10 point value so that a composite could be determined.  One outfit would be a 50; another a 70; another 85.  All attempts toward a utopian sustainability would be rewarded and all steps backward would be penalized.

             Here is my platform idea for livestock:

             1.  Soil

            2.  Water

            3.  Management (hygiene, comfort, handling)

            4.  Diet (feed type and source)

            5.  Production team (multi-generational, contentment)

            6.  Post-production  (slaughtering, packaging)

            7.  Ecology impact (wildlife, pollinators, spiders)

            8.  People interface (community interaction, visitation openness)

            9.  Business integrity (paying bills, honoring agreements)

            10.  Overall beauty

             Have fun.

              There you have it.  On Nov. 20 Prince Charles will take these responses to a group of global agribusiness and food business executives to try to get buy-in.  It's a fascinating endeavor and I congratulate Prince Charles for his persistence in advancing a different value system into the marketplace.

             What do you think is the biggest impediment to wider sustainability buy-in in the food and farm sector?